Imagine psychology as a giant house.
For decades, researchers were busy decorating one wing of it (specifically the men’s wing) with leather armchairs, cigars, and portraits of Freud looking smug. Meanwhile, the women’s wing was left half‑furnished with a fainting couch labeled “hysteria,” and the rest of the house (i.e., race, class, sexuality, disability, etc.) was basically a boarded‑up attic.
When women, people of color, queer folks, and others walked in, the field basically shrugged and said, “Oh, sorry, we didn’t design this place for you.”
That’s when feminist and critical psychology showed up with a flashlight, a sledgehammer, and maybe a few glitter bombs, saying: “This house was built on missing blueprints. It’s time to remodel.”
The Problem It Tried to Solve
For much of its history, psychology treated men as the “default human” and women more like quirky side quests.
Freud blamed women’s problems on wandering uteruses, like their organs were taking spontaneous road trips through the body. Researchers regularly excluded women from studies because their hormonal cycles were “too messy,” as if men weren’t walking hormone factories themselves.
Oh, and when women were included, their differences were framed as deficits: less logical, more emotional, basically “men but glitchy.”
And it wasn’t just gender. Psychology also managed to fumble race, class, sexuality, and disability.
Pretty big “Oof!” moment, right?
IQ tests designed for middle‑class white kids were used to declare immigrant children “less intelligent.” Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder until 1973, which meant gay people were literally diagnosed just for existing.
The field wasn’t just studying people. Turns out, it was reinforcing the power structures of its time, like a biased referee who not only calls the game but also wrote the rulebook to favor their own team.
Feminist psychology and critical approaches asked the awkward but necessary questions: Who gets to define “normal”? Who’s missing from the research? And why does psychology keep acting like a mirror when it’s really more of a funhouse mirror, stretching and distorting reality to match whoever built it?
Roots of Feminist & Critical Psychology
The seeds of feminist psychology were planted when women started side‑eyeing the libido-obsessed face of psychology itself: Sigmund Freud.
Karen Horney rejected his theory of “penis envy,” suggesting that maybe women weren’t jealous of men’s anatomy but of their social privileges. Translation: women didn’t want a penis; they wanted equal pay. (Imagine that!)
By the 1960s and 70s, the women’s liberation movement inspired psychologists like Naomi Weisstein, who basically called the entire discipline out as a tool of patriarchy. Carol Gilligan later pointed out that Kohlberg’s stages of moral development made women sound morally stunted just because they valued relationships and care. Gilligan’s response was essentially, “Maybe women aren’t wrong. In fact, maybe your measuring stick is broken.”
Critical psychology grew in parallel, borrowing ideas from Marxist thought, postcolonial studies, queer theory, disability studies, and critical race theory.
Its central argument? Psychology is never neutral. It’s like a magician claiming to pull a rabbit out of a hat, except the hat was rigged the whole time.
Together, feminist and critical psychologists insisted that psychology stop pretending to be a floating brain in a jar. Real humans live in societies with power, inequality, and culture, and you just simply can’t understand the mind without understanding those forces.
Core Ideas of Feminist & Critical Psychology
At the heart of feminist psychology is the recognition that traditional research often carries gender bias. Theories built on male subjects were presented as universal, while women’s experiences were treated like weird exceptions. It’s like designing a “one‑size‑fits‑all” T‑shirt that only fits dudes named Chad.
To that point, intersectionality is another important cornerstone. Kimberlé Crenshaw coined this term to explain how systems of oppression overlap.
For example, a Black woman doesn’t just experience racism plus sexism like a bad math problem; she experiences a unique form of discrimination that is shaped by both. Intersectionality reminds psychology to stop playing oppression Jenga and start looking at the whole tower.
This is exactly why voice and experience matter so deeply.
Instead of treating participants as anonymous data points, feminist and critical psychologists say: listen to people’s stories. Numbers can tell you that something is happening, but narratives tell you what it feels like. It’s the difference between glancing at Yelp stars and actually reading the review that says, “The waiter called me ‘sweetheart’ and then dropped soup in my lap.”
When you do start listening to those stories and looking through the lens of feminist and critical psychology, you quickly see that power and oppression are central themes.
Psychology has been used to justify inequality, with approaches ranging from IQ tests that reinforced racial hierarchies to diagnoses that pathologized queer identities as just a couple of examples.
Critical approaches flip the script, treating psychology as a potential tool for liberation rather than control. Think of it as hacking the Matrix, except instead of dodging bullets, you’re dodging outdated diagnostic categories.
Hence, we come to the next big idea: reflexivity.
Researchers are encouraged to check their own biases, like a scientist looking in the mirror and saying, “Oh wow, maybe my worldview is influencing my worldview.” Instead of pretending to be robots, they admit they’re humans with perspectives, hang‑ups, and probably a bit too much coffee.
Finally, feminist and critical psychology are unapologetically activist. They don’t just want to describe the world like a bored tour guide. They want to change it to make research more inclusive, therapy more empowering, and, ultimately, society more just.
Think of them less as passive observers and more as interior designers who take psychology’s house from a lopsided bachelor pad to a fully renovated, inclusive home with enough chairs for everyone to have a seat.
Why This Perspective Was Revolutionary
Feminist and critical psychology were revolutionary because they pulled back the curtain and revealed that psychology’s “universal truths” were often just local customs in lab coats.
For decades, the field proudly presented theories of human behavior based on narrow samples: white, middle‑class, Western men. That’s like studying penguins and then writing a book about “all birds.”
By pointing out these blind spots, feminist psychologists didn’t just critique the field so much as they expanded it.
Carol Gilligan reframed women’s moral reasoning as different, not deficient. Queer theorists challenged the pathologization of non‑heterosexual identities, helping to kick homosexuality out of the DSM. Meanwhile, critical race scholars highlighted how psychology often ignores systemic racism, showing that you can’t understand mental health without understanding the social context.
Though the revolution was also philosophical.
You see, psychology had long pretended to be neutral, like Switzerland in a lab coat. Feminist and critical approaches argued that no science is truly neutral. Every research question, every method, every definition of “normal” reflects social values and power structures.
Admitting that doesn’t ruin psychology’s credibility. In fact, it makes it more honest, like a magician finally explaining the trick and then teaching you how to do it yourself.
And yes, Freud’s cigar might have been “just a cigar,” but it was also a symbol of how much men dominated the conversation. Feminist psychology lit that cigar on fire and said, “Take a seat, Sigmund. Maybe it’s time women and other marginalized groups got a chance to hold the mic.”
Critiques and Limitations
Now, not everyone has been lining up to join the feminist psychology fan club.
Most commonly, some critics argue that these approaches are too political, turning psychology into activism rather than science. Others worry that by focusing so much on power and oppression, they risk losing sight of universal aspects of human behavior.
And within the realm of feminist and critical psychology, there are also internal debates.
Some feminist psychologists lean toward essentialism, arguing that men and women have inherent differences that should be valued rather than dismissed. Others embrace social constructionism, arguing that gender itself is a cultural invention.
Critical psychology, meanwhile, is a big, messy family reunion that includes Marxist cousins, queer theory uncles, and postcolonial aunts. It’s vibrant, but sometimes chaotic.
Still, even the critics admit that feminist and critical psychology forced the field to confront its biases. Whether you agree with every argument or not, the conversation they started has still reshaped psychology into a more self‑aware and inclusive discipline.
Legacy and Modern Influence
Today, the fingerprints of feminist and critical psychology are everywhere.
Research samples are more diverse, ethical guidelines emphasize respect and the protection of vulnerable populations, and the DSM has been revised to stop pathologizing marginalized identities (though it still sparks plenty of debate).
Fittingly, therapy has also shifted as a result of these changes and discussions.
Instead of the therapist as an all‑knowing wizard behind the curtain, many approaches now emphasize collaboration and empowerment. Feminist therapy, for example, explicitly addresses power dynamics between therapist and client, aiming for a relationship that feels less like “doctor vs. patient” and more like “partner vs. problem.”
But even beyond therapy, these perspectives ripple into education, workplace equity, public health, and activism. Diversity and inclusion programs, trauma‑informed care, and reproductive rights campaigns all draw on important insights from feminist and critical psychology. Even mental health apps now try (though sometimes awkwardly) to acknowledge cultural context and systemic factors.
Above all else, though, the biggest legacy here is self‑awareness.
Psychology now recognizes that its theories and practices are not neutral but shaped by history, culture, and power. That recognition has opened the door to a more inclusive, equitable, and socially engaged science.
Tomato Takeaway
Feminist psychology and critical approaches remind us that psychology isn’t just about neurons firing or rats pressing levers. It’s also about power, perspective, and whose stories are getting told. They challenge us to question assumptions, to listen to the voices that were once ignored, and to use psychology not just to understand the world but to make it fairer.
So, as we wrap up this article, here’s a Tomato Takeaway for you…
Think of a moment when you noticed a “default” assumption in everyday life. Maybe it’s a toy aisle split into pink and blue or your phone’s voice assistant automatically set to “female.” What did it reveal about the hidden biases baked into everyday systems?
Share your examples, and let’s compare notes on how we can rewire those defaults together.
Fueled by coffee and curiosity, Jeff is a veteran blogger with an MBA and a lifelong passion for psychology. Currently finishing an MS in Industrial-Organizational Psychology (and eyeing that PhD), he’s on a mission to make science-backed psychology fun, clear, and accessible for everyone. When he’s not busting myths or brewing up new articles, you’ll probably find him at the D&D table or hunting for his next great cup of coffee.